        "THE BLOOD OF CHRIST REMITS OUR SINS, NOT BAPTISM!"

Without exception, everyone who reads these words, and who believes
the Bible, accepts that the blood of Christ was shed for the
remission of our sins.  Before we discuss the relation of baptism to
the remission of sins, let's ask ourselves why we universally agree
Jesus' blood was shed for the remission of our sins?  Wasn't it
because the Lord Himself said in Mt 26:28,

                28  For this is my blood of the new
                testament, which is shed for many for
                the remission of sins.

Certainly, we can all accept this plain statement from the lips of 
our Lord Himself.

Why then can we not accept the words of His apostle Peter, when in 
Ac 2:38, Peter used identically the same language in the Greek 
about baptism:

                 38  Then Peter said unto them,
                 Repent, and be baptized every one of
                 you in the name of Jesus Christ for
                 the remission of sins, and ye shall
                 receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If we can't believe Peter in Ac 2:38 when he said baptism was for 
the remission of sins, why would we believe Jesus when He used the 
same words to say His blood was shed for the remission of sins?  If 
on the other hand, we believe Jesus when He said His blood was shed 
for the remission of sins, why shouldn't we as well believe Peter 
when he used the same words to say baptism was for the remission of 
sins?

If someone should argue that "for" or "unto" means "because of" in 
Ac 2:38, i.e., we are to be baptized because our sins have already 
been remitted, why would not identical language mean that Jesus shed 
His blood because our sins had already been remitted, and therefore 
the blood of Christ has nothing to do with the remission of sins?  
Surely, we can see that whatever purpose Jesus accomplished when He 
shed His blood, the same purpose is accomplished by the baptism of a 
penitent believer in the name of Jesus Christ.

Interestingly, it is by no means unusual to meet denominational 
preachers who have had a smattering of exposure to the Greek language 
who insist the word translated "for" or "unto" means "because of" in 
Ac 2:38.  However, when pressed for a New Testament translation 
that so translates the word, they universally meet with failure.

Denominational SCHOLARS generally will not sacrifice their 
scholarship in favor of their denominational doctrine...

G.R. Beasley-Murray, Principal of Spurgeon's College in London, later 
Senior Professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY, 
wrote a modern classic, Baptism In The New Testament.  He gives 
chapters which thoroughly discuss baptism in the Gospels, in Acts, in 
Paul's writings, and in other apostolic writings.  In his 
introduction, Beasley-Murray said:

   This book is intended to offer a Baptist contribution to the
   discussions on baptism that are taking place throughout the
   Christian world.  But the indefinite article should be
   observed; the impression must not be given that my interpre-
   tations are characteristic of Baptist thought generally. At
   most it can be claimed that they represent a trend gaining
   momentum among Baptists in Europe.  I have striven to inter-
   pret the evidence of the New Testament as a Christian scholar,
   rather than as a member of a particular Christian Confession.
   (G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism In The New Testament, Grand
   Rapids:  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962, pp. v-vi.)

From his chapter on baptism in Acts, Beasley-Murray said:

   Consequently, baptism is regarded in Acts as the occasion and
   means of receiving the blessings conferred by the Lord of the
   Kingdom.  Admittedly, this way of reading the evidence is not
   characteristic of our thinking, but the intention of the author
   is tolerably clear. (Ibid., p. 102)

   Whatever the relationship between baptism and the gift of the
   Spirit elsewhere in Acts, there appears to be no doubt as to
   intention of Acts 2:38; the penitent believer baptized in the
   name of Jesus Christ may expect to receive at once the Holy
   Spirit, even as he is assured of the immediate forgiveness of
   his sins. (Ibid., p. 108)

From his chapter on baptism in the apostolic writings, concerning
Romans 6:3-4, Beasley-Murray said:

   We that are Baptists have largely ignored this aspect of
   Pauline teaching; even when we have heard it we have hesitated
   to accept, partly no doubt because of the one-sided emphasis
   it has often received but partly also because we have not
   known how to deal with it.  But misapplication of truth must
   never be permitted to make us insensitive to it. (Ibid., pp.
   142-143)

   Some concluding statments were:

   In light of the foregoing exposition of the New Testament rep-
   resentations of baptism, the idea that baptism is a purely
   symbolic rite must be pronounced not alone unsatisfactory but
   out of harmony with the New Testament itself.  Admitedly, such
   a judgment runs counter to the popular tradition of the Denom-
   ination to which the writer belongs...

   The extent and nature of the grace which the New Testament
   writers declare to be present in baptism is astonishing for
   any who come to the study freshly with an open mind.

   ...the "grace" available to man in baptism is said by the New
   Testament writers to include the following elements:

      forgiveness of sin, Ac 2.38 and cleansing from sins,
      Ac 22.16, 2 Co 6.11;

      union with Christ, Ga 3.27, and particularly union with
      Him in his death and resurrection, Ro. 6.3ff, Co 2.11f,
      with all that implies of release from sin's power, as
      well as guilt, and the sharing of the risen life of the
      Redeemer, Ro 6.1-11;

      participation in Christ's sonship, Ga 3.26f;

      consecration to God, 1 Co 6.11, hence membership in the
      Church, the Body of Christ, 1 Co 12.13, Ga 3.27-29;

      possession of the Spirit, Ac 2.38, 1 Co 6.11, 12.13, and
      therefore the new life in the Spirit, i.e., regeneration,
      Ti 3.5, Jn 3.5;

      grace to live according to the will of God, Ro 6.1ff,
      Co 3.1ff;

      deliverance from the evil powers that rule this world,
      Co 1.13;

      the inheritance of the Kingdom of God, Jn 3.5, and the
      pledge of the resurrection of the body, Ep 1.3f, 4.30.
      (Ibid., pp. 263-264)

Beasley-Murray stated his conclusion in a chapter entitled "Baptismal
Reform and Church Relationships":

   First, there ought to be a greater endeavor to make baptism
   integral to THE GOSPEL.  It is taken as axiomatic amongst us
   [Baptists - SGD] that the proclamation of the Gospel consists
   of making the redemptive acts of God in Christ known and call-
   ing for faith in Christ as the due response; baptism is then a
   proper subject for exposition in the enquirers' class, along
   with instruction as to the nature of the Church, of worship,
   of Christian obligation in the Church and to the world, etc.

   Peter's response, however, to the cry of his conscience striken
   hearers on the Day of Pentecost was not "Repent and believe",
   but "Repent and BE BAPTIZED"! (Ac 2.38).  Naturally faith was
   presumed in repentance, but Peter's answer told the Jews how
   to become Christians:  faith and repentance are to be expressed
   in baptism, and SO they are to come to the Lord.  Baptism is
   here a part of the proclamation of Christ.  In an Apostolic
   sermon it comes as its logical conclusion.  An effort ought to
   be made to restore this note in our [Baptist - SGD] preaching.
   (Ibid., p. 393)

Thus, we believe the blood of Jesus was shed for the remission of
sins, because the Bible says it.  Likewise, we believe baptism is for
the remission of sins, because the same Bible says it in identically
the same words.
This document (last modified September 13, 1997) from the Christian Classics Electronic Library server, at @Wheaton College